If "'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed," then they are perfectly free to do so. The problem is that they'll probably feel the need to force the rest of us to "sacrifice" along with them.
The legitimate controversy isn't whether or not "Global Warming" is real, it's whether or not, and/or to what extent, humans have anything to do with it.
How, precisely, does this "support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change?" If it was as warm or warmer in 800 A.D, then it would seem that we've previously achieved current conditions without "human interference." Unless, of course, you believe that something man was doing 1200 years ago was somehow "interfering" significantly with the environment.
Whatever nitwit(s) on either side of the ID debate might have thought about this having anything to do with (dis)crediting ID should be summarily ignored. What the hell does this have to do with anything?
I can stipulate that we're not going to abolish "public" education anytime soon, if for no other reason than the heavy politcal influence wielded by the NEA and other such organizations. However, I will not concede that "most people are not capable of" educating themselves. Yes, they may need some guidance on how to do this, but it's really very simple. The key is that they have to want to do it. And that may be harder to achieve than overpowering the the NEA et al.
I hope the writing you got paid for was better than what you've demonstrated here: no capital letters, no apostrphes in some conjunctions, etc. OTOH, I was impressed that you could use the appropriate "you're" for the context - most writing I encounter these days, even from adults, is something like, "your an idiot."
I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to criticize, but it becomes more frustrating each day to read the semi-literate offerings from supposedly educated people.
Keep up the reading. And don't be so surprised that you're learning more from that than from school. After all, that's the way that the Revolutionary generation was educated - reading and understanding classics.
Casio has been making calculators for years that include a key to perform this function. What's the big deal just because it's a "hidden" feature on the TI?
So, since the market is so flawed, if everyone simply refused to purchased any such item, the manufacturer would, regardless, proceed merrily on his way making more and more of them, right?And, doing what with them?
Just because the consuming public is too ignorant to take care of themselves doesn't invalidate the power of the market.
I can't believe that supposedly educated, intelligent people still look at some vision of the future, and because the technology to do something doesn't currently exist, nor the knowledge to develop that technology, they pompously announce that it's impossible. Just 15 years ago, 2400 BAUD was the fastest we'd ever be able to transmit over copper. Then 9600 BAUD was the fastest we'd ever be able to do. Then 28k, then 33k, etc, etc.
This sort of story always remind of the U.S. Patent office announcing that they planned to close down because "everything that can be invented, has been invented." That was ~1896.
The issue of his PhD has been addressed multiple times now. He explains the circumstances under which he acquired it, and you and others aren't satisfied with it, so of course that settles that: he's a liar.
I don't remember the labels he used for the various "flavors" of evolution. They're covered numerous times in the aforementioned seminars.
And I'm really getting bored with a discussion in which one side insists on proceeding from the basis that the person whose views are being discussed believes differently than I do, so he's wrong, period, end of discussion. There isn't really much discussion possible in that climate. I've remained civil in the course of this exchange, and I appreciate that you have, as well. But this is going in circles, at this point, so I'm pretty much done, unless there's something new you (or anyone else) would like to offer up.
I don't thik you ever said whether or not you had actually watched any of Hovind's seminars. If you have, you must have missed where he explains that, in his view, there are six distinct "definitions" of evolution. Some, he has no argument with at all; some are just plain silly.
I didn't intend to imply that Hovind was a "better or truer" Christian, or anything else. He does take the side of the foundational book of his faith. Does is not seem odd that one would claim to be of a certain faith, and yet refute the foundations of that faith?
I hadn't read enough to pick up on that. I agree - it is interesting. If that's the case, then I wonder (even more) why he chooses to bash Hovind so. Perhaps he's one of those "Christians" who doesn't believe the Bible.
The site you originally linked quotes Hovind addressing the issue of his PhD.
Incidentally, I went back and read a bit more on that site. The author really must have a lot of spare time to be able to devote that much to the singular pursuit of discrediting Dr. Hovind. I wonder why someone would think it so important to discredit a single individual that they would invest that much time and energy to do so.
>>Are you choosing to ignore the parts that demonstrate that he's a liar?
Not necessarily. And I would point out to you, and anyone else "listening" in, that one may make mistakes, and take a position that might not be correct, without being a "liar." I haven't bothered to wade through all the mud being slung on the previously linked site - and frankly don't intend to spend the time to do so. If you have some specific "demonstration" that you'd like to point out and/or discuss, then I'd be happy to take a look at it.
RE: Poly-strata fossils - this must be a favorite point with the anti-Creation crowd; I've had two references to it in one day. The discussion that you point to is pretty obviously not what Dr. Hovind is taking issue with. Almost universally, when he takes issue with some position in the Evolution/old Earth camp, it has to do specifically with the claim that took "millions of years." If one concedes that whatever the specific point of contention is happened over a relatively short time (i.e. 6500 years or less), then I doubt that Dr. Hovind would take issue with that. If you would take the time to listen to even one of the video seminars available for FREE download at his We site, I think you'd discover that he's far from the inflexible fanatic that you and others here seem to think.
>>And it doesn't even take that long...The tree gets buried in the process. Poof, the mystery is gone!
So it doesn't take "millions of years?" OK. Whether your explanation is correct, or Hovind's, the key point is that the generally accepted line that these layers built up over a "millions of years" is not necessarily correct.
I gave significant attention to the tax issue only because the site you linked led off with that as a basis upon which to marginalize the man and his position. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether he pays taxes or not. Well actually, I like him better if he doesn't.
As to whether he's a "real" doctor or not, that same site quotes Dr. Hovind's response to this very question. It's interesting to note that this site is indulging in the very sort of ad hominem attack that he discusses in his response.
Interesting that the link you provided to demonstrate that Hovind is a "fraud" says nothing about the current topic, but bashes him because of some trouble with the IRS. Horrors! He apparently takes issue with our tyrannical tax laws, so naturally he must be a fraud in every respect, right?
And he hasn't sold me anything. As I pointed out in my original post, the video downloads are free. Additionally, his site explains clearly that, if one does choose to purchase the videos on DVD, the materials are not copyrighted, nor copy protected, so anyone can freely duplicate and distribute them.
So tell us; when you examined the evidence he presents, where did you find fault with it? Can you point to any specific "lies" anywhere in his presentations?
Oh, and one more thing about the linked site; the author asserts, "I dare say the vast majority of adversarial scholars, who are mocked by brother Hovind during his lectures, pay their taxes, including on 'gifts' which total more than $10,000." Well, he may be right, but if so, the joke's on him - and those who paid taxes on those gifts. You see, according to the IRS code, gifts of up to $11,000 are not taxable.
IF everyone who is responding to this with som much "everyone knows that..." flavored smugness would like to actually learn a bit about the vast scientific evidence in support of the "Creation" theory, check out the video seminar series (free downloads) at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index.jsp. Be forewarned that the commentary in these is heavily biased toward Christianity. But that doesn't invalidate the science, so just expect it, and just ignore that part if you're not interested. Also note that Dr. Hovind is willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere on the topic. There are downloads available of previous debates of that sort.
A better question might be, "why is the Federal government involved in deciding what DVD players can and cannot do?" How about they all go home, stop taking several trillion dollars a year from us, and let us - the market - decide what we want?
Slashdot Mirror
If "'An overwhelming majority of Americans think they can help reduce global warming and are willing to make the sacrifices that are needed," then they are perfectly free to do so. The problem is that they'll probably feel the need to force the rest of us to "sacrifice" along with them.
The legitimate controversy isn't whether or not "Global Warming" is real, it's whether or not, and/or to what extent, humans have anything to do with it.
How, precisely, does this "support the argument for global warming as a result of human interference rather than natural climate change?" If it was as warm or warmer in 800 A.D, then it would seem that we've previously achieved current conditions without "human interference." Unless, of course, you believe that something man was doing 1200 years ago was somehow "interfering" significantly with the environment.
Whatever nitwit(s) on either side of the ID debate might have thought about this having anything to do with (dis)crediting ID should be summarily ignored. What the hell does this have to do with anything?
I can stipulate that we're not going to abolish "public" education anytime soon, if for no other reason than the heavy politcal influence wielded by the NEA and other such organizations. However, I will not concede that "most people are not capable of" educating themselves. Yes, they may need some guidance on how to do this, but it's really very simple. The key is that they have to want to do it. And that may be harder to achieve than overpowering the the NEA et al.
I hope the writing you got paid for was better than what you've demonstrated here: no capital letters, no apostrphes in some conjunctions, etc. OTOH, I was impressed that you could use the appropriate "you're" for the context - most writing I encounter these days, even from adults, is something like, "your an idiot."
I suppose I shouldn't be so quick to criticize, but it becomes more frustrating each day to read the semi-literate offerings from supposedly educated people.
Keep up the reading. And don't be so surprised that you're learning more from that than from school. After all, that's the way that the Revolutionary generation was educated - reading and understanding classics.
Casio has been making calculators for years that include a key to perform this function. What's the big deal just because it's a "hidden" feature on the TI?
So, since the market is so flawed, if everyone simply refused to purchased any such item, the manufacturer would, regardless, proceed merrily on his way making more and more of them, right?And, doing what with them?
Just because the consuming public is too ignorant to take care of themselves doesn't invalidate the power of the market.
Pretty simple solution to this nonsense: don't buy anything that requires any sort of ID. The market will take care of the problem.
http://news.com.com/Sony+cuts+HD+camcorder+down+to +size/2100-1041_3-5710427.html?part=rss&tag=571042 7&subj=news
This sort of story always remind of the U.S. Patent office announcing that they planned to close down because "everything that can be invented, has been invented." That was ~1896.
I don't remember the labels he used for the various "flavors" of evolution. They're covered numerous times in the aforementioned seminars.
And I'm really getting bored with a discussion in which one side insists on proceeding from the basis that the person whose views are being discussed believes differently than I do, so he's wrong, period, end of discussion. There isn't really much discussion possible in that climate. I've remained civil in the course of this exchange, and I appreciate that you have, as well. But this is going in circles, at this point, so I'm pretty much done, unless there's something new you (or anyone else) would like to offer up.
I don't thik you ever said whether or not you had actually watched any of Hovind's seminars. If you have, you must have missed where he explains that, in his view, there are six distinct "definitions" of evolution. Some, he has no argument with at all; some are just plain silly.
I didn't intend to imply that Hovind was a "better or truer" Christian, or anything else. He does take the side of the foundational book of his faith. Does is not seem odd that one would claim to be of a certain faith, and yet refute the foundations of that faith?
I hadn't read enough to pick up on that. I agree - it is interesting. If that's the case, then I wonder (even more) why he chooses to bash Hovind so. Perhaps he's one of those "Christians" who doesn't believe the Bible.
Incidentally, I went back and read a bit more on that site. The author really must have a lot of spare time to be able to devote that much to the singular pursuit of discrediting Dr. Hovind. I wonder why someone would think it so important to discredit a single individual that they would invest that much time and energy to do so.
Not necessarily. And I would point out to you, and anyone else "listening" in, that one may make mistakes, and take a position that might not be correct, without being a "liar." I haven't bothered to wade through all the mud being slung on the previously linked site - and frankly don't intend to spend the time to do so. If you have some specific "demonstration" that you'd like to point out and/or discuss, then I'd be happy to take a look at it.
RE: Poly-strata fossils - this must be a favorite point with the anti-Creation crowd; I've had two references to it in one day. The discussion that you point to is pretty obviously not what Dr. Hovind is taking issue with. Almost universally, when he takes issue with some position in the Evolution/old Earth camp, it has to do specifically with the claim that took "millions of years." If one concedes that whatever the specific point of contention is happened over a relatively short time (i.e. 6500 years or less), then I doubt that Dr. Hovind would take issue with that. If you would take the time to listen to even one of the video seminars available for FREE download at his We site, I think you'd discover that he's far from the inflexible fanatic that you and others here seem to think.
It's pretty obvious then that you haven't watched any of the video seminars available for FREE download at his Web site.
So it doesn't take "millions of years?" OK. Whether your explanation is correct, or Hovind's, the key point is that the generally accepted line that these layers built up over a "millions of years" is not necessarily correct.
I gave significant attention to the tax issue only because the site you linked led off with that as a basis upon which to marginalize the man and his position. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether he pays taxes or not. Well actually, I like him better if he doesn't.
As to whether he's a "real" doctor or not, that same site quotes Dr. Hovind's response to this very question. It's interesting to note that this site is indulging in the very sort of ad hominem attack that he discusses in his response.
And he hasn't sold me anything. As I pointed out in my original post, the video downloads are free. Additionally, his site explains clearly that, if one does choose to purchase the videos on DVD, the materials are not copyrighted, nor copy protected, so anyone can freely duplicate and distribute them.
So tell us; when you examined the evidence he presents, where did you find fault with it? Can you point to any specific "lies" anywhere in his presentations?
Oh, and one more thing about the linked site; the author asserts, "I dare say the vast majority of adversarial scholars, who are mocked by brother Hovind during his lectures, pay their taxes, including on 'gifts' which total more than $10,000." Well, he may be right, but if so, the joke's on him - and those who paid taxes on those gifts. You see, according to the IRS code, gifts of up to $11,000 are not taxable.
IF everyone who is responding to this with som much "everyone knows that..." flavored smugness would like to actually learn a bit about the vast scientific evidence in support of the "Creation" theory, check out the video seminar series (free downloads) at http://www.drdino.com/Downloads/Seminar/vids/index .jsp. Be forewarned that the commentary in these is heavily biased toward Christianity. But that doesn't invalidate the science, so just expect it, and just ignore that part if you're not interested. Also note that Dr. Hovind is willing to debate anyone, anytime, anywhere on the topic. There are downloads available of previous debates of that sort.
A better question might be, "why is the Federal government involved in deciding what DVD players can and cannot do?" How about they all go home, stop taking several trillion dollars a year from us, and let us - the market - decide what we want?